1. Technical Field
This invention relates generally to electronic devices having tactile feedback mechanisms, and more particularly to a device having one or more motion generators coupled to a bezel configured to provide a local haptic response to the user interface surface of an electronic device.
2. Background Art
Mobile telephones and other similar portable electronic devices are becoming increasingly popular. As more and more users carry these electronic devices, manufacturers are designing smaller devices with increased functionality. By way of example, not too long ago a mobile telephone was a relatively large device. Its only function was that of making telephone calls. Today, however, mobile telephones fit easily in a shirt pocket and often include numerous “non-phone” features such as cameras, video recorders, games, and music players.
Just as the feature set included in electronic devices has become more sophisticated, so too has the hardware itself. For instance, not too long ago most portable electronic devices included manually operated buttons. These buttons, which were generally limited to the numbers one through nine and zero, as well as a functional button or two, were generally dome-shaped, popple style buttons that a user depressed for actuation. Today, however, manufacturers are building devices with “touch sensitive” screens and user interfaces that include no popple style buttons. They instead include capacitive or other touch sensors that are configured to detect a user's touch. Where the user's touch is detected as corresponding to a user actuation target or other control icon, the device responds just as if a manual button had been pressed by the user.
A problem with these touch sensitive user interfaces is that the user is unable to experience the manual, tactile feedback associated with popple style buttons. Touch sensitive user interfaces are generally no more than a flat surface made of glass or plastic. When the user places his finger above a user actuation target, there is no mechanical response, i.e., no button “pushing back” after being depressed, thereby notifying the user that the button has been pressed.
Designers have grappled with this problem for some time. One prior art solution posed is to provide an audible “click” when a user's touch is detected. However, this solution has problems in that audible sounds are not permissible in some environments, such as libraries and theaters. Further, the user is often unable to hear the audible click in loud or outdoor environments.
A second solution is to provide a vibration device within the electronic device to make the overall device shake when a user's touch is detected. For instance, some manufacturers include a motor that spins an unbalanced weight to make the overall device vibrate. This response is often unwelcome by the user, however, in that it fails to simulate the positive tactile feedback of a single button. Additionally, causing the entire device to vibrate may make actuation of small targets along the user interface difficult due to the motion of the overall device.
There is thus a need for an improved tactile feedback system for an electronic device that provides a more localized haptic experience.
Skilled artisans will appreciate that elements in the figures are illustrated for simplicity and clarity and have not necessarily been drawn to scale. For example, the dimensions of some of the elements in the figures may be exaggerated relative to other elements to help to improve understanding of embodiments of the present invention.